Clustered 3 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Jul 24, 2024 → Sep 13, 2024. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_511414a03a194f12 · merge_method llm · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
Identity (basic) · PII
CA VT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Oct 17, 2023 → Oct 18, 2023
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jun 18, 2024
Reported by VERMONT AG filing
Hair Club for Men notified consumers of unauthorized access to its network between Oct 17-18, 2023. A cybersecurity firm identified a file containing names and variable personal data on June 18, 2024. The incident is contained; the company enhanced security measures. No specific total count was disclosed, though 70 Rhode Island residents were explicitly identified.
Hair Club for Men, Ltd., Inc. reported unauthorized access to certain network systems between October 17 and October 18, 2023. The investigation identified files containing names and other personal information. The company engaged a cybersecurity firm and enhanced security measures. Affected individuals were offered credit monitoring and identity protection services. The incident is considered resolved.
Hair Club for Men, Ltd., Inc. notified the California Attorney General of unauthorized access to certain systems on its network between October 17 and October 18, 2023. The investigation identified files containing names and other personal information. The company engaged a cybersecurity firm, enhanced security measures, and offered credit monitoring to affected individuals. No specific count of affected individuals was disclosed in the filing.
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.